Eco scares are really like bush fires: you can set a lot of fires all the time, but only a few will really take hold. There are a few key conditions:
I found this interesting from http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/climate-thuggery/29919
July 29, 2011, 10:04 am
By Peter Wood
Is anthropogenic global warming (AGW) a valid scientific theory? Is it well supported by the empirical data or is it mostly an artifact of computer modeling? I don’t have answers to these questions. I stand, rather, on the side of those who favor rigorous scientific inquiry, transparency, and openness. I am not a climate scientist, but neither do I cede the whole matter of answering such questions to the designated experts. Good science doesn’t limit itself to the views of narrow-cast specialists. Valid observations, corrective criticism, competing hypotheses, and rigorous testing can and often do arise from other sources.
It surprises me, however, that proponents of AGW, or what might be called the climate orthodoxy section of AGW theory, often respond to criticism and dissent with a kind of fury. Far from welcoming discussion, they seek to suppress it. In doing so they jeopardize both their own authority and the prestige of the scientific community. (read more)
(See also the related article by judith curry)
This is just a list of where the science now contradicts climate alarmism. I’m sure there’s more, but I just thought it would be interesting to see what I could remember. But first let’s outline the real scientific (not hearsay) evidence for manmade global warming Continue reading
The Biased Broadcasting Company really have shot themselves in the foot with the Jones debacle and I’m in no mood to make excuses for that worthless bunch of hypocritical morons.
The simple fact is David Kelly died because the system was so one sided that a professional scientist who felt they had to go against the “consensus” and questioned the “unequivocal facts” of WMD felt their life was not worth living.
When the BBC fought to publicise the anti-consensus view that the weapons scientists and experts might be wrong, they were entirely right to do so. But now the foot is on the other shoe, and they find they wish to endorse that same expert/scientific consensus, suddenly its OK to squash evidence counter to that “overwhelming” consensus.
So when Andrew Turnbull illustrates the mess the BBC has got itself into by suggesting that even Darwin And Galileo Would Fail The BBC’s Latest Science Test, the real irony is not that the Biased Broadcasting Company are ignoring the fact most mainstay science started as “fringe views” rejected by the mainstay “experts”but that they are rejecting their own hard fought ethos because fundamentally there is no difference between a rules to limit reporting only the official “climate scientists” and those that will limit them to report only the official “weapons scientists”.
How could they be so stupid? How could they fight so hard to publish the views of someone like Dr Kelly’s and then fight so bitterly to be able to squash the views of someone like Dr Spencer whose work shows there is “no weather of mass destruction” (actually it’s much less heat trapping but … )
They may win a short term victory and be able to shut up the sceptics until the science supporting our view is overwhelming, but in the long run, this “gagging policy” will force the BBC to gag anyone who disagrees with any official “expert” just because they are official. If only the ghost of Dr Kelly’s would come back to haunt them.
I was attracted to read this article in the telegraph.com.au, because it sounded like someone had produced a list of things that could actually be linked to global warming … and unlike climate alarmists, I like to read all the evidence and then sprout my opinion rather than just reading the evidence that happens to fit my opinion (but for economy I don’t read all the warmist carp).
How wrong I was! … it was in fact a list mocking all the articles that have been claiming the “first casualty of global warming”. The very fact that people keep using the same phrase year after year after year proves beyond any doubt the shear scale of corrupt false propaganda there is on this subject. Who needs to prove them wrong when the warmist do such a good job to show up their corruption? There can only be one first and each new claim is essentially a rejection of all such previous claims as false.
So much for global warming! Ireland’s summer heatwave is still missing in action – and there’s no sign of it turning up anytime soon.
Experts at Met Eireann, the Irish state weather service, have confirmed the country has just experienced the coldest July in 50 years — this after a similar finding for June.
And there’s little sign of August being much better after the month began with widespread rain across the 32 counties. (Irish Central)
I’m really glad someone else has noticed, because my eldest son has been swearing blind its been warm, when I personally felt cold.
Somehow now the BBC have cleared themselves of any bias on global warming, I doubt this denialist-anti-science-mythology that it’s not hot will not make it onto the BBC!
I couldn’t help chuckling as first I read unrealclimate desperately trying to find some way to knock down the paper that proves their models are wrong.
The paper has been published in a journal called Remote sensing which is a fine journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science, and it is evident that this paper did not get an adequate peer review. It should not have been published.
Then what do I read next:
Gleason is questioned about the ridiculous 25% survival calculation in his paper; he’s asked why he could get clear pictures of whales, but not dead polar bears; he’s asked why his only photos appear to be manipulated; he’s asked whether he’s sure that the same dead polar bear wasn’t seen more than once. He’s also questioned on the “pal review” on this paper (Monnett’s wife was a reviewer). (Link)
Which just about sums up the whole distorted carnival. If you write something alarmist … no climate “scientists” will ever complain, (unless you aren’t alarmist enough). But if you write something scientific … then they’ll complain till kingdom come that it didn’t go through their buddy review.
I thought the first sign of the end of the global warming scam would be a swathe of news media becoming outright sceptic. Somehow I just assumed that like I did, the news media would just look at the evidence and like a juror deciding guilt or innocence, reappraise the evidence and decide that the evidence just doesn’t stack up for the alarmists.
Recently I’ve started seeing an odd start of story. I would call it the “we obviously support the ‘consensus’ … but what if there is something in the sceptic position?”
To me this is just an incredible position. If you look at the science, it’s difficult to sit on the fence. Continue reading
The story is too confused and is too likely to be all hot air … or maybe not. So I’ll leave it to you to decide and just post the link:
http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-arctic-scientist-under-investigation-082217993.html
Two reports have or are coming up with I believe is the nail in the coffin of global warming. There will always be idiots who believe this nonsense, but the evidence against the ridiculous “it’s got to be CO2 as nothing else explains warming” and “there are massive positive feedbacks, there’s got to be because CO2 did it”. They are now dead.
CERN is about to come out with a report which from the gossip will say that solar activity does cause cloud formation from which it is pretty obvious that “it was the sun what did it”.
Now Roy Spencer has direct observational evidence that the atmosphere is not retaining the heat it needs to retain if the necessary massive positive feedbacks were in place. Forbes Continue reading
